OT: Uki PLEASE read this website

[SimonM]

http://www.badarchaeology.net/

[sanjuro_ronin]

These too:

www.chunkyasses.com
www.hairypits.com
:D

[uki]

i have saved it to my favorites and will delve into it at a later time. thank you. information is for sharing. :)

and yes i read the links that i post... they are purely to bring about a spark of curiosty to question what has been established b ecause afterall, nothing is set in stone and if it is, the bond will eventually wear away and break... change is the way of nature.

[SaintSage]

http://www.badarchaeology.net/

My issue with that website is that they speak dogmatically. While I happen to agree with the majority of what I read, they offer no evidence as to why their views are correct. They set up straw-men but don't delve into why the science of archeology is missing from the "bad archeologists." It's written in the same way many "bad archeology" is written, statements without premises or conclusions.

[SimonM]

Not always. Certainly their article on cristal skulls was relatively well sourced and provided quite a lot of evidence supporting their position (skulls as euro hoax)

[uki]

My issue with that website is that they speak dogmatically. While I happen to agree with the majority of what I read, they offer no evidence as to why their views are correct. They set up straw-men but don't delve into why the science of archeology is missing from the "bad archeologists." It's written in the same way many "bad archeology" is written, statements without premises or conclusions.well it was, afterall, a canadian who suggested that this site be looked into... :p

[SaintSage]

Not always. Certainly their article on cristal skulls was relatively well sourced and provided quite a lot of evidence supporting their position (skulls as euro hoax)
You're right; I guess I just expect those who have the arguments on their side to actually use them and avoid the same rhetoric their opponents do. It seems to me to be the proper way to argue whether or not it is as effective. (Which, sadly enough, I find logic to be less persuasive than emotionalism for a large number of people.)

[Scott R. Brown]

You're right; I guess I just expect those who have the arguments on their side to actually use them and avoid the same rhetoric their opponents do. It seems to me to be the proper way to argue whether or not it is as effective. (Which, sadly enough, I find logic to be less persuasive than emotionalism for a large number of people.)

What do you expect in a society that sees arguing as a negative quality. The "why can't we get along" crowd do not understand that logical argument to demonstrate a point is necessary in order to test premises and conclusions for their accuracy and truth.

An accepted truth that cannot stand the test of questioning is merely blind following!

[Drake]

When you have something you intend to send to just one person, the board has a wonderful PM feature.

[uki]

When you have something you intend to send to just one person, the board has a wonderful PM feature.i was wondering the same thing... obviously there was more to his agenda than he is letting on.